Sponsored Links

The 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel did better than expected in official EPA testing, receiving an industry-best 46 mpg rating on the highway — better than any non-hybrid car in America — and 27 miles per gallon in the city. And its 16.6-gallon tank makes possible a driving range of 700 highway miles (though simple math tells us the range stands at 763.6 highway miles) per fill-up. Astonishing, really.

The rating creates more breathing room between the the Cruze 2.0TD and the beloved Cruze Eco, which achieves 42 mpg highway when equipped with a six-speed manual.

In addition, the 2014 Cruze Diesel also gives the driver substantially more power compared to the gasoline model. Specifically, its 2.0-liter turbodiesel engine provides a segment-leading estimated 148 horsepower (110 kW) and estimated 258 lb.-ft. of torque (350 Nm) capable of propelling the Cruze TD from 0-60 MPH in about 8.6 seconds. The overboost feature increases the torque to an estimated 280 lb.-ft. (380 Nm) for short bursts of stronger acceleration when needed, such as entering freeway traffic, or passing, or shaming a Jetta TDI.

The 2014 Cruze Diesel is expected to begin its launch next month, with a starting price of $25,695, including an $810 destination charge. Chevrolet says that the vehicle represents a better value than a similarly-equipped VW Jetta TDI with an automatic transmission. The Cruze Diesel will also offer the now-familiar Chevrolet MyLink infotainment system, 17-inch alloy wheels, leather-appointed seating, a longer five-year 100,000-mile powertrain limited warranty, and a two-year maintenance plan.

1st congratulations on reporting this major significant accomplishment by GM. I would think that the industry would be rocked by these numbers. The Jetta has been used as the benchmark in this area and the Cruze absolutely blew the Jetta away. Maybe only manufacturers and engineers recognize the significance of these numbers but in today’s world beating the “benchmark” car in the segment in economy by over 10% (think about a 10% improvement in mileage) and in HP and torque. Once again GM has set a new standard. The Cruze is absolutely the standard by which other non-hybrid cars will be judged. This car may not be as “flashy” as the new Corvette and Camaro but in many ways this accomplishment can add far more to GM’s sales and profitability over the long haul. My question is what other cars and platforms can utilize this efficient 2.0 L turbo diesel engine – could it be a possibility work in GM’s new midsize pickups like the Colorado?
This also points out that Mark Reuss and his engineering team is covering all bases and setting new standards not only with new performance and high end cars like the new Corvette C7, the new Camaro Z28, car of the year Cadillac ATS but now with the new Cruze Diesel!!!
Kudos GM, well done.

I am disappointed that the diesel version costs nearly $8 grand more than the eco model. Consider that diesel fuel generally costs more per gallon than unleaded, and you only get an EPA estimate of 4 miles per gallon more, I don’t see a benefit. Without having done the math, I am guessing you would have to travel a couple hundred thousand highway miles to see a net gain.

I am in the market for a very fuel efficient, roomy sedan and I love the Cruze. I was holding out for the diesel to come to market, but I cannot justify the purchase now. I will buy the ECO. Power numbers mean nothing when the cuise control is set at 75.

Ok, I have done the math for you and the numbers are pathetic. At an average of 40 cents more per gallon, you are going to spend $6.40 more for every fill up. Based on travelling 100,000 hiughway miles, the diesel will burn 2174 gallons. the ECO will burn 2381 gallons. Benefit diesel, right? Wrong!! Using a cost of $3.50 for unleaded and $3.90 for diesel (not my numbers, that’s from GasBuddy) you’re going to spend $8478.60 for those 2174 gallons of diesel compared to $8333.50 for the 2381 gallons of unleaded.

The diesel, in real numbers, is actually less economical than the ECO model. I truely do applaud GM for bringing a diesel sedan to market, but these numbers are exactly why there is no market for diesel sedans in America.

Sorry if you “dislike” my blog post, but it is based on dollars and cents (sense). The diesel will hurt your wallet, not help it.

Both include destination. The 2014 Eco will see a few hundred dollar price increase over the 2013 price above, and the Diesel version is better equipped, actually more like a 2LT while the Eco is more like the 1LT.

And that is my only beef: why didn’t they just make the engine an option on the most popularly equipped model: the Cruze 1LT Sedan? That could have put the price in the $23,500 range.

And, since most people will not be driving 100% on the highway you really need to do the math using combined ratings, which we don’t have yet. But using the Jetta TDIs numbers of 42h/30c/34 combined I think its safe to say that the Cruze Diesel will come in at 46h/32c/37 combined versus Cruze Eco auto at 39h/26c/31 combined. So use 6 MPG difference in your calculations not 4 and the diesel costs less to drive by $802.

But this isnt really about saving a few dollars. The diesel will be a blast to drive compared to the tall-geared eco, and the cabin will be much more comfortable and better equipped. All this while getting outstanding fuel economy will attract enthusiasts.

And make no mistake, Diesel is an enthusiast choice. How many enthusiasts there are will determine the fate of this model.

True, my first objection was based on MSRP, but MSRP was not factored in my data analysis. My analysis was based on the comparison between the ECO and the diesel highway MPG, which is the formation of the article. City and combined MPG have not been released and it may be true that diesel does become more efficient mathematically. I will give you that end of the debate for now.

I’d be very careful extrapilating Cruze mpg’s based on what the EPA has given the Jetta. I’d like to hear your thought process is coming up with 46h/32c/37 for the Cruze. There are countless factors that would create differences between what the Jetta gets and what the Cruze will get.

I’ll give them credit for trying this and for focusing very clearly on the Jetta TDI as a target. I really think it’s more of an experiment than anything else? Who is going to buy these? It seems to me that a VW diesel customer is fairly locked-in to the brand? A few will try the oil burning Cruze for sure, but how many is a few? The lack of a manual option and the lofty price will be tough hurdles to jump. I see agressive incentives and/or a LS trim version in the future.

Also consider that the diesel Cruze will offer a premium driving experience over the Eco. This is an engine UPGRADE. Much more power and torque + increased gas mileage. That’s worth a lot of money to some people.

I am impressed with your evaluation and interpretation. I hope your numbers are correct, hope even more that they turn out to be conservative. This is a fault though. Did you factor aerodynamic efficiencies, power to weight ratios, or gearing?

I am not a fan of Volkswagen and I have no idea what the engine displacement is in their jetta diesel? Is it a 2.5 liter? If it is, the cruze engine would spend more energy propelling it forward than the jetta, thus reducing efficiency.

Nothing is good enough (even though it is actually quite awesome), everything GM does is horrible and bad and they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. The fact that GM just out-classed VW at its own game (literally) is the point here; not everyone makes decisions based on eeking out as much MPG out of something… if they did, everyone would be driving Toyota Yarises and Priuses. And here, you get more power and very impressive fuel economy.

Chew on this: Jetta/Golf TDI is the most saught-after mainstream car. Not many can afford it compared to a gasoline powered Jetta, but it is still highly desirable.

My Sonic , rated at 40 HWY , regularly gets up to 48 HWY on level ground.
Uses cheaper fuel , and is quicker than this Cruze.
Chevy FAIL.
Not worth looking at…too heavy and not as convenient as a hatchback like mine.
Sonic cheaper to maintain too.
Have fun with urea refills/multiple batteries/contaminated fuel (oily diesel attracts dirt and other contaminants)/frequent filter changes/glow plugs going out. Keep a can of WD40 handy to start it when the glow plugs crap out.
Diesel ? Been there , done THAT !

There is a bit of a difference between the two. If not the Sonic would have sold 240,000 units and the Cruze would have sold 80,000 units last year. The opposite of what actually happened.

The content of this vehicle is not out yet but I bet it will be almost exactly the same as the car it competes directly against, the $25,000 Jetta TDI. Really need to do a content analysis to see if it really is too expensive.

Joe,
The urea tank is 7 gallons, worth about 10-15,000 miles of driving. The Cruze Diesel only has one battery, not two like the Duramax. Also, using any type of “starting fluid” is a potentially, very expensive suggestion you made. Starting fluid can cause a run-a-way engine, leading to catostophic failure. Further, glow plugs are only used in cold weather operation, most diesels will start without glow plugs at temps above approx. 25F.

Joe, This isn’t 1980 anymore. Get with the times. Yes, that 350 gas-with-diesel-heads was not a reliable piece. Please don’t base your opinion on a 33 year old observation. GM (along with every other automotive manufacturer) has come a long way since then.

What is it with you Dave, are you just on here to try to win an argument, man if you don’t like an American diesel car don’t buy one, but don’t try convince others from not buying one. Look if you like to argue go to pickuptrucks.com they like to argue there too.

Silent electrician. Don’t know how you came to the conclusion that nothing GM does is good enough from my commentary. If you look at a previous post from me, I stated that I applaud GM for bringing the diesel to America. I also stated that I am a cruze customer, just not a diesel customer because the cost benefit isn’t there for me to warrant the purchase. Rather, I am shopping for an ECO model.

I love this company and the new leadership. My first car was a Chevy and, god-willing, my last car will be a Cadillac. I would never consider anything other than a GM product.

I don’t like the idea of a tiing belt instead of timing chain. I think its time to pop for a volt with all the credits, discounts and my gm card…I can get one the same or cheaper than the diesel which I also was holding out for. Though I bet the diesel gets more than 46mpg on the highway if babying it. Someone I know claims they get 50 on their jetta. But now with enough solar panels installed, a volt is gonna be a no brainer since 90% of my driving will soon be free after my 5yr payback on solar panel out of pocket costs.